Monthly Archives: December 2010

RNC Chairman Candidate Reince Priebus on Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, NOM's chairman, interviews Reince Priebus--one of the serious contenders for RNC chairman--watch it here.

You can watch the whole interview by clicking here.

A Christmas Message from Brian Brown

"Is it just religion?"

The man stopped us as in front of the famous Mayflower Hotel's tea room. He introduced himself as an LGBT activist and asked politely, "Your opposition to gay marriage, is it just religion?"

We were busy, so I just smiled, handed him my card, and said, "Email me."

But I've been thinking of his question as I sit down to write my Christmas message to you.

How can you frame a world in which "just" and "religion" belong in the same sentence?

Just a few days from now we celebrate the most amazing thing that ever happened in humans history: God became man. A baby was born, and suddenly God was with us.

"Just religion?" is the way the world--that world which we humans are now busily attempting to remake in our own image--dulls our childlike sense of wonder, our ability to see and feel and react to the truth about who we are. We are children of the King who freely chose to love us, who taught us what love means: to be willing to die if necessary, and to get up every day to do the work that God has placed before us.

Yes, we are blessed to live in a country whose Constitution was framed by great men who understood that limiting government's power to repress religion was necessary to protect faith and faith communities. "Free exercise" is the fundamental value our Constitution gives us, because religion is so important to human life.

And no, to answer the question, of course the idea that to make a marriage you need a husband and wife is not a purely religious idea. Human beings across the centuries with different religious commitments have been able to grasp the unique nature and importance of marriage, perceiving its deep roots in the reality that when men and women give themselves to each other physically, something else momentous happens: new life.

The second-greatest day, repeated every day in the history of mankind, is the birth of an ordinary child, made in the image of God, and made for love.

Here's our Christmas card.

I told them all to smile and you can see they did! Except John, who wasn't having any of the jolly thing at that moment.

No, it's never just religion. It's the truth about life--the meaning of life, the meaning of love--that matters.

I'm so privileged to work alongside so many good people like you, to fight for the truth about love, with love.

To those of you who do not share our faith commitments, let me tell you that we treasure your fellowship, your good will, your courage and your commitment to marriage.

God bless you, each and every one.

And Merry Christmas!

Politico: SBA, NOM Press RNC Chairmen on Social Issues

The story at Politico on an innovative effort lead by SBA list to ask leading candidates for the RNC their opinion on life.  SBA also invited NOM to ask  the RNC candidates questions on marriage.

National Organization for Marriage Launches No-H8 Campaign Against Pink T-Shirt Video, Calls on Responsible Same-Sex Marriage Advocates to Reject Donations

"Stop Using Shocking Video With Real Children Promoting Profanity and Hatred to Raise Money for Your Cause!"
-Brian Brown, President of NOM

National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today launched a nationwide video entitled “Protect The Kids: Stop the Exploitation” in response to and exposing a fundraising effort by angry gay marriage activists that sells T-shirts and uses young children shouting obscenities to raise money for their cause.

“The American Foundation for Equal Rights, Equality California, Courage Campaign, and Lambda Legal have certainly reached a low point displaying a poor lack of judgment for refusing to disassociate themselves from this video of real children shouting angry profanities as props to raise money for their cause,” stated Brian Brown, President of NOM.

“We call on responsible LGBT organizations to return any donations raised as a result of this shock video, in which adults put profanities in the mouths of children and encourage what can only be called open hatred of their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife.”

NOM is asking these gay marriage activists to reject all funding from this profane campaign and calls on the video’s producers to end immediately this organized effort to exploit children. “No matter how much we may disagree with each other, ads like these that promote incivility and hatred leave no room for discourse,” Brown added. “By signing NOM’s Kid Petition, you are asking the above activists to stop using innocent children shouting obscenities to make your case. Is that too much to ask?”

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, or Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of the Board, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], at 703-683-5004 ext. 130.


Matt Franck on NPR: Charges of "Hate" Intended to Silence Debate

Matt Franck's interview on NPR discussing his WaPo column that points out the charge of hate is made by people who would prefer not to have to debate.

Help Stop Radical SSM Activists Obscenity-Laden Attempt to Corrupt our Children

Radical activists have released an angry and degrading new video that they are using to garner publicity and raise money for same-sex marriage advocacy. Already watched by nearly 2 million people, the 2-minute video is laced with dozens of angry obscenities, even putting obscene language in the mouths of 8 and 10-year-old kids.

Words fail me in trying to describe it . . . it’s vile, sickening and incredibly sad to see the way these children have been exploited for cheap shock value. I find myself thinking – is this the kind of thing they want to teach our children?

This video has been produced by a handful of radical gay marriage activists – but it’s being used to fund some of the nation’s largest same-sex marriage groups. NOM is calling on these same-sex marriage organizations – including the Courage Campaign, Lambda Legal, Equality California, and the American Foundation for Equal Rights – to reject these ads by their supporters. We call on them to reject all funding from this obscene campaign, and to demand an immediate end to this angry and hateful effort that is degrading our conversation and exploiting young children.

Click here to sign the petition urging these major same-sex marriage groups to publicly reject this hateful effort.

Then invite five friends to join you in signing. There is simply no place in American dialogue – no matter how much we may disagree with each other – for such filthy and exploitive ads. Ever.  Much less during this season of Christmas as well celebrate the birth of the Holy Child.

As we approach Christmas on Saturday, I ask you to consider a gift for marriage this year. We are on the verge of unprecedented opportunities – and great risks as well – that will shape the future of marriage in our nation. Our opponents certainly understand the stakes, and are raising millions to force their agenda on an unwilling nation.

Using Civil Unions as a Legal Weapon Against Marriage

The European Court of Human Rights has rejected a basic human right to same sex marriage.  But U.K. gay rights activists are now seeking to use Great Britain's civil union law to strike down its marriage laws.

This is clearly a coordinated strategy now.  We've seen it in Connecticticut, California, and now Great Britain.

It is not impossible to provide practical benefits for same-sex couples without endangering your state's marriage laws, but the laws have to be drawn carefully if the goal is to provide some compassionate help for those ineligible for marriage, while retaining your marriage laws.

But it's much harder:

"Peter Tatchell, who is fronting the 'Equal Love' campaign, . . . .said: "Since there is no difference in the rights and responsibilities involved in gay civil marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships, there is no justification for having two mutually exclusive and discriminatory systems.

"Banning black couples from getting married would provoke uproar. The prohibition on gay marriages should arouse similar outrage.

"The ban on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships is a form of legal sexual apartheid - one law for gay couples and another law for heterosexual partners. Two wrongs don't make a right."

The campaign's legal advisor, Robert Wintemute, expressed confidence that the court would strike down the ban.

He said of the current laws: "It's discriminatory and obnoxious, like having separate drinking fountains or beaches for different racial groups, even though the water is the same.

"The only function of the twin bans is to mark lesbian and gay people as socially and legally inferior to heterosexual people.

"I am confident that we have a good chance of persuading the European Court of Human Rights that the UK's system of segregating couples into two 'separate but equal' legal institutions violates the European Convention. I predict that same-sex couples will be granted access to marriage in the UK."

The application to the ECHR will be filed by all eight couples simultaneously today. Should the court find that the law contradicts European conventions, then the UK will be obliged to make changes."

What Does This Mean for the Gay Marriage Debate?

Maggie on NRO about DADT.

"Whether You Like it Or Not"

Vallejo parents who were upset at their children being exposed to indoctrination suggesting that all family forms are just the same were ignored by the school board, who ruled their children will be exposed without notification, without right to object.

Panic in the Streets over the Rainbow Flag

From Dr. J at NOM's Ruth Institute:

Wow! I really hit a nerve talking about the rainbow and what it does or does not symbolize. It is very interesting to me that this offhand discussion of symbolism struck such a nerve. Trouble is, the various commentators can’t seem to get their stories straight.

One headline says, “Anti-Gay Ruth Institute Wants to Steal the Rainbow Flag from Gays.”

Meanwhile, gay columnist Dan Savage says, “we’ll let you have your f**king rainbows back,” as long as we completely capitulate on every single substantive point. (Such a deal!) The clear implication is that he thinks he is in a position to give the rainbow back. This sorta kinda suggests he thought all along that he did own it. (Note the charming language. And the charming headline on the story where it was reported.)

In contrast with these guys who evidently think they own the rainbow and are irritated that I pointed out its obvious Biblical symbolism, there are another whole batch of people calling me petty for caring about something as insubstantial as the meaning of a piece of cloth. (Some of the comments on the blog are of that sort.) If it is so unimportant, why the hysteria? That little interview has generated more attention than any other commentary I’ve done on seemingly more substantial matters.

I’m inclined to agree with our commenter Leland: my choice of Prop 8 courtroom attire and a five minute interview with One News Now has caused “widespread panic.” When this many people start circling the wagons to ridicule someone from mutually contradictory positions, there is definitely panic in the air.

Welcome Friewis

From Dr. J at NOM's Ruth Institute:

Me outside the courtroom on Prop 8 trial day

Welcome to all the new visitors from this site. Now that you are over here, I call you my FRIEnds w/ Wrong Ideas. (I don’t have enemies.) What with Christmas parties and all, I haven’t had time to extend a proper welcome to all my new Friends from Queerty and TPM and other such places. Evidently, I stirred up a hornet’s nest with my comment about the rainbow flag. Glad you’re over here to talk with us.

Full disclosure: If you stay around over here long enough, like Nerdy Girl and Sean, you become my Peeps with Wrong Ideas, or PEEPWIs. And once you start showing up over here, I start praying for you. Just so you know.

Take Back The Rainbow?

From Dr. J at NOM's Ruth Institute:

More press over Dr. Morse’s scarf statement.

By Alexandra Petri

Even now, in the midst of all the hubbub over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute, based in San Diego, wants the rainbow back from the “Rainbow Coalition” of gay rights activists.

“We can’t simply let that go by,” she told OneNewsNow. “Families put rainbows in their children’s nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows…Noah’s Ark and all the animals…. Those are great Christian symbols, great Jewish symbols.”

Dr. Morse also noted that she wore a rainbow scarf to the Prop 8 appeal hearings to symbolize that the rainbow belonged to everyone. I’m sure that wasn’t confusing at all.

But I think she has a point: life must be difficult if you’re a proponent of traditional marriage who happens to love rainbows.

“I’m wearing these to express disapproval for your way of life,” you have to scream, whenever parades start moving towards you. “It’s complicated!”

You hang giant rainbow flags outside your window at all times, because the rainbow played a prominent role in the Bible, but then you have to explain to people who show up expecting some sort of parade that not only did you not mean to welcome them, you actively disapprove of their very existence.

You hung a rainbow mobile over your son’s crib for years, and he started to assume that you were a “cool mom” who would be okay with whoever he turned out to be. This was not accurate, and you had to sit him down and have The Talk about how this was not God’s plan.

“Look, I love rainbows,” you say. “I just hate that people see you wearing a rainbow and just assume you’re tolerant. That’s just so presumptuous. I mean, when I see a rainbow in the sky, I certainly don’t think God is in favor of gay marriage.”

Keep reading.

Anderson Cooper's Ridiculist!

It's so funny.  Anderson Cooper tries to make fun of Dr. Jennifer Roeback Morse for saying she wore a rainbow scarf to the Prop 8 trial to show that gay rights groups don't own the rainbow.

Funny,  Cooper doesn't show a clip of Dr. Jennifer Roeback Morse actually saying anything, because that would just point out that she's cheerfully saying exactly what he's saying: "Nobody owns the rainbow!"

I bet Anderson Cooper, who I actually often enjoy watching because he often strives to be fair,  didn't even look at the video of Jenny's remarks, he probably just trusted his staff's inaccurate and silly micharacterizations that fit  their personal stereotype of what such a person would say.

Nothing like making up angry right-wing straw men (or women!) and then knocking them down.

Jenny's a great communicator.  Musn't let her voice appear on your show.  Better to just to make ridiculist claims.

Prop 8 Opponents React to NOM’s Prop 8 coverage

After the Prop 8 oral arguments on December 6th, I told you how Judge Reinhardt had called out Ted Olson and David Boies on their tactical maneuvers designed to prevent Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling from ever being reviewed by a higher court – and how Olson and Boies are desperate to keep the Ninth Circuit limited to Judge Walker’s unbelievably biased findings of "fact." That’s one of our important roles here at NOM – making sure you get the full story, and not just the edited version the New York Times wants you to read.

But apparently Olson and Boies didn’t appreciate the truth.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) – the name chosen by the Hollywood insiders who teamed up with Olson and Boies to bring the Prop 8 lawsuit – is sending a fundraising email around to its supporters, calling on them to "fight back against NOM’s discriminatory and divisive efforts to uphold Prop 8."

And get this, AFER, a group backed by millions from Hollywood insiders, is worried over our current $1 Million Marriage Challenge Campaign! They know our track record – that we were the largest single donor to the Prop 8 campaign, and have committed at least $1 million to protect Prop 8 in court. And they know we don’t have to match their millions dollar for dollar. As long as we have the resources to keep on fighting and make sure the truth is heard, we can be confident that truth and love will ultimately prevail.

Thanks to your support this past year, we see many amazing opportunities on the horizon in 2011. Opportunities to roll back same-sex marriage in New Hampshire and Iowa. To pass marriage amendments in states like Minnesota, Indiana and Pennsylvania. And so much more.

With your help, NOM will be there every step of the way. Getting you the unvarnished truth on what’s going on. Defending Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. Lobbying for marriage in statehouses and local legislative offices, and reaching out to grassroots supporters who are not yet involved in this nationwide struggle to protect marriage.

Will you join us today? Your financial gift this time of year will mean so much as we look to make 2011 our most successful year yet!

Is the Hate Card the Recourse of Those Unwilling to Engage the Debate?

In the Washington Post, Matthew Franck argues the insistent use of the "hate" card to shut down debate is actually the last recourse of those who do not want to engage in reasonable debate:

"Some stories from recent months: A religion instructor at a midwestern state university explains in an e-mail to students the rational basis for Catholic teaching on homosexuality. He is denounced by a student for "hate speech" and is dismissed from his position. (He is later reinstated - for now.) . . .

On the west coast, a state law school moves to marginalize a Christian student group that requires its members to pledge they will conform to orthodox Christian doctrines on sexual morality. In the history of the school, no student group has ever been denied campus recognition. But this one is, and the U.S. Supreme Court lets the school get away with it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-respected civil rights organization, publishes a "report" identifying a dozen or so "anti-gay hate groups," some for no apparent reason other than their vocal opposition to same-sex marriage. Other marriage advocacy groups are put on a watch list.

On a left-wing Web site, a petition drive succeeds in pressuring Apple to drop an "app" from its iTunes store for the Manhattan Declaration, . . .The offense? The app is a "hate fest." Fewer than 8,000 people petition for the app to go; more than five times as many petition Apple for its reinstatement, so far to no avail.

Finally, on "$#*! My Dad Says," a CBS sitcom watched by more than 10 million weekly viewers, an entire half-hour episode is devoted to a depiction of the disapproval of homosexuality as bigotry, a form of unreasoning intolerance that clings to the past with a coarse and mean-spirited judgmentalism. And this on a show whose title character is famously irascible and politically incorrect, but who in this instance turns out to be fashionably cuddly and up-to-date.

What's going on here? Clearly a determined effort is afoot, in cultural bastions controlled by the left, to anathematize traditional views of sexual morality, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage, as the expression of "hate" that cannot be tolerated in a decent civil society. The argument over same-sex marriage must be brought to an end, and the debate considered settled. Defenders of traditional marriage must be likened to racists, as purveyors of irrational fear and loathing. Opposition to same-sex marriage must be treated just like support for now long-gone anti-miscegenation laws.

This strategy is the counsel of desperation. In 30 states, the people have protected traditional marriage by constitutional amendment: In no state where the question has been put directly to voters has same-sex marriage been adopted by democratic majorities. But the advocates of a revolution in the law of marriage see an opportunity in Perry v. Schwarzenegger , currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In his district court ruling in the case in August, Judge Vaughn Walker held that California's Proposition 8 enacted, "without reason, a private moral view" about the nature of marriage that cannot properly be embodied in public policy. Prop 8's opponents are hoping for similar reasoning from the appeals court and, ultimately, from the Supreme Court.

The SPLC's report on "hate groups" gives the game away. It notes that no group is listed merely for "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical." But when describing standard expressions of Christian teaching, that we must love the sinner while hating the sin, the SPLC treats them as "kinder, gentler language" that only covers up unreasoning hatred for gay people. Christians are free to hold their "biblical" views, you see, but we know that opposition to gay marriage cannot have any basis in reason. Although protected by the Constitution, these religious views must be sequestered from the public square, where reason, as distinguished from faith, must prevail.

Marginalize, privatize, anathematize: These are the successive goals of gay-marriage advocates when it comes to their opponents.

First, ignore the arguments of traditional marriage's defenders, that marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that children will have mothers and fathers, and that same-sex marriage is not an expansion but a dismantling of the institution. Instead, assert that no rational arguments along these lines even exist and so no refutation is necessary, and insinuate that those who merely want to defend marriage are "anti-gay thugs" or "theocrats" or "Taliban," as some critics have said.

Second, drive the wedge between faith and reason, chasing traditional religious arguments on marriage and morality underground, as private forms of irrationality.

Finally, decree the victory of the new public morality - here the judges have their role in the liberal strategy - and read the opponents of the new dispensation out of polite society, as the crazed bigots of our day.

. . .[B]ut the charge of "hate" is not a contribution to argument; it's the recourse of people who would rather not have an argument at all.

That is no way to conduct public business on momentous questions in a free democracy."